Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AbsolutePunk.net

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. BJ^Talk 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AbsolutePunk.net

Fails wp:web, but is being offered as a reliable source in other Afds. The only reliable third party source is a local newspaper mentioning the site once - but the article's not about the site. Prod reverted without reason why. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t08:33z 08:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and possible COI: [1]. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t08:38z

Easy keep. As well as the stuff already in the article that asserts notability, it's regularly mentioned in reliable news sources. COI is irrelevant; we don't delete based on the article's author. Giggy (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "In the July 2007 issue of Blender, owner Jason Tate was named #18 in their list of "Top 25 Most Influential People in Online Music.". See also Google News, which as Giggy says, shows plenty of reliable sources. COI is annoying to be sure, but it's not a reason to delete an article. naerii 13:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- wp:web: "For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources". wp:web#Criteria: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." (my emphasis) -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t13:29z
  - Yes. I'm aware of that. Did you review the Google News hits provided? There is plenty there to show notability. naerii 13:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't see any reliable source there about the site. The two groups of reliable-y sources was about some basketball game, not the site. If there are RSes, they haven't been put it in the article yet. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-08t11:20z
Delete. Original edits were definite WP:COI, as are a good portion of first-and-only time editors to the article....there's even an entry on the talk page where the founder of the website threatens potential vandals with actions on the website. It's an advertising laced article about an advertising laced forum fansite. Notability isn't assumed because the site has tons of reviews and even more forum members. Easy Keep? That's odd. Btl (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your argument is odd. How on earth does COI determine notability? Perhaps you should read the page you link to. Perhaps you should also attempt to rebutt our arguments instead of misrepresenting them. Giggy (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Google hits fail to assert notability of AbsolutePunk.net, they simply mention the site. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this site distinguishes itself from many other non-notable sites. The article clearly exists on Wikipedia to drive traffic to the site. The fact that there are conflict of interest issues also suggests deletion, and quickly. =Axlq 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems notable for an on-line music community at the time of its founding. Ottre (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.